1st Reading for the Board of Education

May 22, 2008

2

Executive Summary

History of OUSD’s Financial Recovery

Effective Resource Use

External & Internal Financial Impact Analysis

Fiscal Policies and Controls

Revenue Enhancements

Expenditure Controls

3

Original financial plan released in 2005, titled “Multi-Year Fiscal Recovery Plan”

2007-08 First Interim report communicated a balanced budget for the current and two subsequent years (12/12/07)

Long-term financial sustainability is foreseeable but the District must first overcome the following challenges: Unresolved audit findings; transition to independent auditor Continued declining enrollment California’s economic and fiscal condition Settlement of union contract agreements

This plan is a living document that will continue to address the financial health of the District over the next 3 years

4

External & Internal Financial Impact Analysis To mitigate declining enrollment continue to

strengthen academic programs to attract families; tie Central Office resources to enrollment changes; generate additional revenues; and implement plan to reduce number of schools

To offset the impact of charter schools the District should build on success of charter oversight practices; include district-wide expenses in charter agreements, exchange effective policies and practices, and sell services via service economy to increase revenue for District

5

Fiscal Policies and Controls Use lessons learned and third-party evaluations to modify

process on Results-Based Budgeting (RBB)

Based on analysis of declining enrollment and financial sustainability a Right Sizing Plan should be created to consider the merger or closure of schools

Evolve the service economy model to increase transparency of services and costs, build upon accountability mechanism that keep the focus on serving schools, and expand service offering

6

Revenue Enhancements Strive for increased attendance and enrollment through

continued capacity building of school staff and technology systems

Investigate other revenue streams such as parcel taxes that are in-line with community expectations and/or based on square feet

Continuation of district focus on private fundraising and application for grants that raises supplemental resources

Expenditure Controls

Monitor year over year encroachments and adjust accordingly

District leadership committee oversight of central GP hires

Institute programs to help reduce utility costs

7

8

Primary purpose of the 2005 MYFRP was to institute a set of recommendations (26) that would help the District to progress towards financial recovery indicated primarily by: A healthy unrestricted, General Fund reserve, and Budget where expenses do not exceed revenues.

The next slides describe a summary of the actions that significantly affected OUSD’s financial position were:

1. Resolve audit findings Audit findings for 2002-03 and 2003-04 were unresolved with a total

potential liability of $40.6 million. From both years, final total liability is $1.8 million to be paid through

reduction in principal apportionment.

9

2. Repayment of General Obligation (GO) bonds from Capital Facilities Fund The 2002-03 FY facilities audit revealed unallowable use of GO bond to

make payments on COP debt. Corrective action to repay GO bond. District has repaid $9.9 million to GO bond from Capital Facilities Fund.

Starting in 2007-08 payment of $304,406 from General Fund will be made over twenty years.

3. Charge indirect cost to RRMA District not collecting revenue by charging RRMA for indirect costs. Implementation of strategy which used the required ½ of 1 percent

General Fund contribution for Deferred Maintenance match to be paid from the Routine Restricted Maintenance Account (RRMA).

4. Charge charter schools for excess special education costs District was absorbing large majority of special education cost for

public school students within school district boundaries. In MOU with LEA-sponsored charter schools District include provision

that excess special education costs contributing to District’s encroachment would be paid by charter school.

10

5. Sell or lease surplus property 2005 MYFRP plan recommended the District investigate and pursue

opportunities to sell and/or lease surplus property to pay down State Loan.

District explored opportunity for the District Administration building only. Decision in 2006-07 to take no action.

6. Repayment of State Loan from Child Development Fund General Fund contributed $2.1 million to help child development fund

covering spending deficit. 2005 MYFRP plan instituted re-payment to help pay down State Loan; all

payments made to date; payment of $57,224 each year through 2024-25 FY.

7. Repayment of State Loan from Child Nutrition Services Fund General Fund contributed $4.1 million to help child nutrition service

fund covering spending deficit. 2005 MYFRP plan instituted re-payment to help pay down State Loan; all

payments made to date; payment of $206,843 each year to 2024-25 FY.

11

Object Code

2007-08 2nd Interim

2008-09 Projected

2009-10 Projected

A. Revenues

Revenue Limit Sources 8010-8099 218,015,472 210,597,298 211,897,301

Federal Revenue 8100-8299 67,555,949 59,841,000 58,644,180

Other State Revenue 8300-8599 129,577,580 118,358,457 119,855,164

Other Local Revenue 8600-8799 42,194,596 29,165,531 27,165,531

Total Revenue 8010-8799

457,343,596 417,962,286 417,562,175

B. Expenditures

Employee Compensation 1000-3999 324,007,308 294,598,331 299,616,642

Books & Supplies 4000-4999 46,873,898 30,235,920 28,985,595

Services, Other Operating 5000-5999 99,010,777 76,648,125 74,896,065

Capital Outlay 6000-6999 1,138,451 2,220,556 1,869,875

Other Outgo (less 7300-7399) 7000-7999 13,499,322 13,404,538 13,404,538

Indirect/Direct Support Costs 7300-7399 (3,215,305) (3,286,471) (3,186,846)

Total Expenditures 1000-7999

481,314,452 413,821,000 415,585,870

C. Other Financing Sources/Uses

Total Finance Source/Use 2,977,234 2,977,234 2,977,234NOTE: Represents both unrestricted and restricted General Fund

12

Object Code

2007-08 2nd Interim

2008-09 Projected

2009-10 Projected

D. Net Increase / (Decrease) in Fund Balance

Net Increase / (Decrease) (20,993,623) 7,068,520 4,903,551

E. Fund Balance, Reserves

Beginning Fund Balance 43,200,654 23,379,401 30,447,921

Audit Adjustment 9793 0 0 0

Restatements 9795 1,152,369 0 0

Ending Fund Balance, June 30

23,379,401 30,447,921 35,351,472

RESERVES FOR:

Revolving Cash 9711 150,000 150,000 150,000

Legally Restricted Balance 9740 5,706,827 15,478,356 20,013,848

Economic Uncertainties 9770 9,626,289 8,237,858 8,278,391

Audit Findings 9780 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

Measure E Balance 9780 517,328 517,328 517,328

Declining Enrollment 9780 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

Undesignated Amount 9790 1,922,464 564,379 891,893

NOTE: Represents both unrestricted and restricted General Fund

13

Overview Transition to District sustainability should be supported not just by policy but a culture of financial responsibility throughout the organization. Strategic budgeting is the allocation of resources that drive towards achievement of the District’s goals.

Research Base School Services of California (SSC) in 2007 showed a significant correlation between fiscally healthy school districts and the presence of policies that aligned goals to resources. Further, fiscally healthy school districts more often reported that site leaders had increased staffing and budget flexibility.

Recommendation Using lessons learned and evaluations of current policies, such as Results-Based Budgeting (RBB), align with more effective resource use. Design and implement annual cycle of data-driven inquiry around the better alignment of District resources to goals across various leadership

levels (i.e., Strategy Team, Central Office, schools)

14

Declining Enrollment

Impact of Charter Schools

State Budget Crisis

15

Overview: Since 2000, District enrollment has declined by over 15,000 students. Two attributable factors are: (a) families moving out of Oakland and (b) growth of charter schools.

Analysis: Below is a chart showing the trend in District, charter, and total enrollment in Oakland. 2007-08 was the first year in which enrollment did not decline as much as predicted. However, the District continues to lose significant revenue.

YearDistric

t Enroll

Charter Enroll

Total Enroll

District Enroll

Change

% Chang

e

RL per student ($)

Projected RL revenue loss

($)2005-06 41,369 6,668 48,037 (3,720) -8.3% $5,172 $(19,239,840)2006-07 39,964 7,228 46,922 (1,675) -4.0% $5,538 $(9,276,150)2007-08 38,852 7,531 46,383 (1,112) -2.8% $5,790 $(6,438,480)2008-09 (proj.)

38,146 7,884 46,030 (706) -1.9% $5,659 $(3,995,254)

2009-10 (proj.)

37,440 8,237 45,677 (706) -1.9% $5,829 $(4,115,274)

Total 5-year Revenue Loss $(43,064,998)

16

Recommendation In order to counter the District’s continued declining enrollment, the following actions should be taken:

1.Stabilizing Enrollment: Continued focus on strengthening learning environments to achieve academic success for all students in order to attract families back to District

2.Right-size Central Office Expenses: Identify services that can be tied directly to enrollment changes and modify costs appropriately; continue to invest in technology to streamline Central Office processes

3.Generate Additional Revenues: Continue to implement service economy that identifies and markets services that can be sold to charter schools, neighboring school districts, and the City of Oakland to recoup lost revenue

4.Right Sizing Plan: Create a detailed Right Sizing plan that considers the merger to closure of between 10 and 17 schools.

17

Overview: A significant number of students who leave OUSD are enrolling in charter schools approved by our local education agency which impacts school site budgets and Central Office expenses. The District can leverage resources and opportunities to benefit from the co-existence of charter schools.

Recommendation:

1. Continue to build upon the success of charter school oversight practices at the district and increase academic standards;

2. Develop policies and practices for exchange of best practices and learning between charter and public schools;

3. Ensure expenses related to lost enrollment is included in charter school agreements (e.g., debt service, special education encroachment, etc.); and

4. Sell services via the District’s service economy to charter schools. Services include nutrition services, print services, custodial, security, data support, and assessment systems.

18

Overview: Based on projected state revenue loss and budget in January, school districts would be severely cut. For OUSD the implication is approximately $23 million less in revenue in 2008-09.

Recommendation:

1. Take careful consideration for the options made available by the Governor during May revise.

2. Strive to increase reserve levels to help mitigate single or multi-year state budget cuts.

3. Establish a “rainy day” fund with the City of Oakland that can be withdrawn in times of revenue shortfall for the District.

19

Results-Based Budgeting (RBB)

School Size Financial Analysis

Service Economy

Debt Structure and Control

20

Overview: RBB is a budgeting process based on a per student formula that accounts for all expenses associated with school operations. Budgets are allocated to and managed by school sites. RBB focuses on four key elements which include: equity, transparency, accountability and autonomy.

Equity Revenue follows the child Expenses are determined at school among principal, staff, and community

Transparency Easier to understand budgets for community and parents Reflects true cost to operate instructional program for schools

Accountability RBB tied directly to school’s strategic plans (SPSA) School Site Council (SSC) oversight of categorical funds

Autonomy Schools have more control over their budgets

Currently 100% of General Purpose (GP) funds

21

Recommendation: Use lessons learned and third-party evaluations to inform board policy on RBB that ensures inter-district funding equity and opportunity for increased student achievement.

Equal revenue allocations Collaborate with schools to discuss strategies that preserve equity of

revenue allocations and address concentrations of higher salaried staff

Simple, accessible financial information Continue to develop easy to understand, user-friendly school site and

Central Office budgets

Shared accountability across organization Develop and streamline support tools to help principals, school support staff,

and District instructional leadership manage RBB more efficiently

On-going, consistent training is critical! Training and support on how to manage declining enrollment, state budget

cuts and increased fixed costs Consideration for the capacity and ability of principals to be

effective instructional leaders and operation managers

22

• Directive from the 2005 MYFRP plan:

“Schools smaller than the fiscally optimal size limit will be evaluated to determine if they are fiscally viable without additional central resources and/or whether there are conditions specific to the school or community that warrant the extra commitment of resources to keep the school operational.”

• Analysis conducted by OUSD Financial Services to determine financial viability for all OUSD schools

• Goal was to answer the question: (1) How does the size of OUSD schools compare to other similar school districts? and (2) What is the minimum school size threshold necessary to “keep the doors open” at the elementary, middle, and high school levels using General Purpose (GP) funds only?

School Size Financial Analysis

23

Answer to Question #1: Compared to other similar California school districts, OUSD has a larger proportion of schools with enrollments less than 300 students. In essence, OUSD has a large number of tiny schools.

Answer to Question #2: In order for a school to be financially sustainable (“keep the doors open”) using General Purpose funds only, enrollment must be at least*:• 300 students at the Elementary School level• 275 students at the Middle School level• 300 students at the High School level

Schools below these minimum thresholds are dependent upon non-General Purpose funds to cover their core operating costs.

* - Critical to note that this analysis does not account for the optimal size as it is related to ideal programmatic and instructional environment.

School Size Financial Analysis

Oakland San Francisco

Sacramento

Schools with enrollment less than 300 students (%)

59% 46% 14%

24

Assumed that all fixed labor costs are a savings in the event of school merger/closure and a portion of fixed non-labor costs.

No savings assumed for teacher compensation as those FTE’s will likely shift to other schools.

Potential annual net savings per school closure:

Elementary: $320K

Middle: $500K

High: $405K

School Merger/Closure: Financial Impact

Elementary Middle High

Labor costs (fixed) $225,000 $390,000 $305,000

Custodial Services $24,000 $24,000 $24,000

Utilities $38,000 $46,000 $45,000

Supplies, materials, etc. $33,000 $40,000 $30,000

Total $320,000 $500,000 $405,000

25

Recommended Number of Schools

The recommended number of schools for merger or closure derives from financial analysis that uses the minimum size of schools by type. That is 300 students for elementary, 275 students for middle, and 300 students for high school.

In order to identify the range of schools that should be merged or closed, two primary criteria were analyzed:

- Current enrollment for the District’s schools, and

- Continued declining enrollment over the next five years which is projected to be between 1.4% and 6.8% annually.

Therefore, based on this analysis, Financial Services recommends the merger or closure of between 10 and 17 schools.

School Size Financial Analysis

26

• In order to ensure OUSD’s current and future financial sustainability Financial Services has recommended the merger or closing of between 10 and 17 schools.

• Further, it is recommended that a detailed Right Sizing Plan be created that considers for the merger or closure of these schools will occur. The three areas that should be outlined include:

1. Process for considering how to approach the merger or closure of schools

2. Criteria that clearly define the indicators to be used in the identification of schools for merger or closure

3. Timeline that allows opportunity for community input but also establishing clear expectations for a final decision.

Right Sizing Plan Recommendation

27

Right Sizing Plan: Process

Staff has evaluated recent right sizing plans implemented by other school districts. Through this research, Pittsburgh has emerged as a best practices model. Key lessons learned include:

• Transparency and community input are critical.

• A diverse range of criteria should be used to identify schools for closure or merger. Important to include:

i) analysis of how schools are improving academic performance of individual students

ii) equity criteria to ensure that a schools from across the city are identified

• The entire plan should be evaluated collectively by the Board of Education so that political decisions are not made about individual schools identified.

• Decisions should be made in a timely fashion.

Best Practices Research

28

Right Sizing Plan: Process

In addition to collecting and learning from Best Practice examples, it is also critical that this process be designed within Oakland’s historical context:

• Over the past 5 years, a number of schools have been closed in Oakland. There are many lessons learned from the strengths and weaknesses of these historical processes.

• Over the past 7 years 48 new schools have been created through a community driven process to improve education options for families.

• OUSD has a continued commitment to small schools.

• This plan seeks to balance the investment in small schools with the financial constraints of TINY SCHOOLS

Oakland Context

29

Category Criteria Rationale

Enrollment

Current Enrollment

• Current enrollment directly impacts the current sustainability of each school• The facility size will be taken into account: some schools are limited in how large they can grow because they are located in small buildings

Neighborhood Residential

Change

Current Residents

• Current OUSD Board Policy values access to neighborhood schools. The number of residents in each attendance area therefore needs to be factored into the criteria

Future Residents

• Although OUSD is losing enrollment across the district, certain neighborhoods are projected to lose more residents than other neighborhoods over the next 5 years

Equity

Proximity to Historical Closure

• Certain neighborhoods have been disproportionately impacted by historical school closures; it is important that this is factored into the criteria

Free / Reduced Lunch %

• Certain schools have more students who qualify for Free/Reduced Lunch than other schools; it is important that this is factored into the criteria so that the plan impacts a diverse range of schools across the city

Academic (OUSD Tiering

Criteria)

Absolute Performance

• All schools should be meeting NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress targets

Student level Growth

• All schools should be improving the performance of each student, regardless of how the student performed before they entered the school

Closing Achievement Gap

• All schools should be closing the achievement gap between the lowest performing subgroup and the overall school performance

Right Sizing Plan: Proposed Criteria

30

Date Activity

May 22, 2008 Draft MYFSP: Presentation of Proposed Timeline and Criteria

June 11, 2008 Final MYFSP: Presentation of Proposed Timeline and Criteria

August 27, 2008

Presentation of detailed community engagement process

September 2008

Interim Superintendent and Strategy Team led community engagement regarding proposed criteria for Right Sizing Plan

Sept 24, 2008 Presentation of Draft Right Sizing Plan (including list of identified schools)

Oct – Nov 2008

Superintendent and Strategy Team led community engagement regarding Right Sizing Plan and identified schools

Nov 26, 2008 Presentation of Final Right Sizing Plan (based on community feedback)

Dec 17, 2008* Decision regarding acceptance of final Right Sizing plan

Jan. – June 2009

Preparation for implementation of Right Sizing plan: HR, Facilities, etc.

July 2009 Right Sizing plan implemented

Commitments• Transparency• Community Input

Right Sizing Plan: Proposed Timeline

* - Decision in December 2008 is necessary to allow time for HR, Finance, and Facilities to plan appropriately for the coming 2009-10 school year and meet Ed Code and contractual deadlines.

31

Overview: The service economy is a strategic investment approach that builds on the District’s performance management philosophy of continuous process improvement. Approach has allowed Central Office to increase service to schools.

Recommendation: Continue to

1. Increase transparency of services provided by Services Organization (Central Office) costs related to providing those services.

2. Continue to implement accountability mechanism (SIPs, scorecards, District acct days) that ensure Services Organization is focused on school needs.

3. Building on the optional service model implemented with Operations Support and Instructional Services turn cost centers into profit centers (e.g.

nutrition srvcs, print srvcs, etc.)

Financial Impact: Project that 84% of GP funds will be made available to schools in 2008-09 and an increase in revenues due to sold services

32

OUSD has three types of long term debt:◦ General Obligation Bonds $563.9 million◦ Lease Obligation (“COPs”) $19.3 million◦ State Loan

◦ 2003 Drawdown $59.6 million◦ 2006 Drawdown $33.5 million

TOTAL $676.4 million

Other long term obligations not discussed today:◦ State School Building Loan – repaid directly from

tax collections, but less than $500,000 left to repay.◦ Health benefits for retirees (Other Post Employment

Benefits, “OPEB”) – less than $100,000 payable

33

General Obligation Bonds • Approved by voters and repaid by taxpayers. District still has $305 million of bonds authorized but not yet issued. • Taxpayer currently paying $80.10 per $100,000 of assessed value each year for bond repayment on $563 million in outstanding debt.

Outstanding Lease Obligations• Districts can enter into long term LEASES. Certificates of Participation, or “COPs” are based on lease agreements.• COPs are repaid by the District (General Fund).

State Loan• Original State Loan for $65 million converted to “Lease Revenue Bonds” by the State. Annual repayment of $3,890,532.• Additional draw-down of $35 Million set-aside for specific purposes and set to repay itself.

34

July 2006 - Drawdown of remaining $35 million of State Loan

State approved expenditures for IFAS Upgrades of $7 million.

Remaining balance is to be applied to repayment or otherwise approved by State Administrator.

2006 State Drawdown $35 million

less IFAS/Tech Upgrades -$7 millionless Audit Findings (02-03, 03-04) -$1.8 million

Funds Remaining $26.2 million

35

Increase Attendance and Enrollment

Parcel Taxes

Private Fundraising

Grants (local, state, federal)

36

Financial Impact: Increase ADA percentage by one percent to generate an additional, on-going $2.2M for the district

Overview: The state measures how often students attend school through a measure called Average Daily Attendance (ADA). This metric is the basis on which all California school districts are funded on most major state funding streams, including General Purpose (GP) dollars.

School Year

Enrollment

ADA %

2003-04 47,650 93.2%

2004-05 45,089 93.4%

2005-06 41,369 93.5%

2006-07 39,964 94.3%

2007-08 38,852 94.5%

Recommendations:• Continue to build capacity with school-based support staff through training and certification• Enhancement and accessibility for all school sites to student-based information systems• Dropout recovery and truancy prevention including transforming OTAP to an intervention center

37

Overview: Fluctuations in the California economy and finances significantly impact consistency in district funding as school districts receive 60% of funding from the state. Local revenue sources such as Measure G (passed as a permanent parcel tax in February 2008) create $20 million in consistent funding for the district to ensure supplemental programs such as libraries and the arts are funded despite external conditions.

Recommendation: The District should investigate other permanent, local revenue streams that can help to create funding stability• Additional parcel taxes in line with community expectations• Progressive parcel tax increases over life of commitment• Explore partnership with City of Oakland to create joint “rainy-

day” fund• Investigate appetite for parcel tax based on square footage.

Financial Impact: Pursue additional parcel tax revenue to stabilize the District’s overall revenue stream from year to year.

38

Overview: Over $27 million raised from private funders in the last 4 years

Recommendation: Continuation of Strategic Projects Office1. Collaborates with

Superintendent, Board of Education and Strategy Team on identifying fundraising goals

2. Goal: Raise $3-7 million per year for strategic projects that support district goals

3. All projects supported by office will be fully-funded by private fundraising

4. Office will be 100% funded by private donations

Private Funding (in millions)

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

04-05(A)

05-06(A)

06-07(A)

07-08(B)

08-09(E)

09-10(E)

10-11(E)

Financial Impact: Estimated $5 million in additional funding for school district per year

39

Overview: Various local, state, and federal grant programs exist which are aligned with the strategic goals of the District. Many of these grants are meant specifically for school districts.

Recommendation: The District should investigate other federal, state, and local grants which can be leveraged to supplement strategic programmatic activities across schools.

Financial Impact: Expect significant revenues from this strategy. Target amounts not yet determined.

40

Encroachments

Monitor Central Office GP Fund Hires

Containing Vacation & Sick Time

Utilities

41

Year Total UR Funding

Total Special Ed Funding

Federal/State Contribute

District Contribute

District Cont. as % of Total UR

2002-03 $264,864,544

$41,105,265 $17,997,094 $23,108,171 8.8%

2003-04 $239,172,488

$32,789,228 $16,143,383 $16,645,845 7.0%

2004-05 $230,606,406

$37,591,252 $20,505,706 $17,085,546 7.4%

2005-06 $253,554,474

$59,991,459 $44,642,016 $15,349,443 6.1%

2006-07 $268,198,595

$59,717,221 $43,914,753 $15,802,468 5.9%

2007-08 $257,428,600

$61,411,094 $45,659,561 $15,752,533 6.2%

Data Source: OUSD Financial Services data files. Note that Federal & State Contribution also includes some other small local funds such as the SEMP-Mental Health fund from ACOE.

Overview: An encroachment on the general purpose fund from a restricted categorical fund is when the expenditures in that fund are greater than the program revenues. The difference is the encroachment.

Recommendations: Monitor year over year financial impact and adjust expenses accordingly:1.Continue to recover SELPA fees from charter schools and surrounding districts2.Renegotiation of transportation contract3.Consideration of trade-off between investment in more certificated teachers versus instructional aides

42

OverviewAcross California school districts that are in declining

enrollment many struggle with being able to reduce Central Office or administrative expenses as fast as school-based expenses. As a result, it is critical to monitor Central Office positions funded by General Purpose dollars.

RecommendationContinue senior leadership committee that reviews appeals to

hire GP staff at Central Office departments that are above and beyond budgeted department staff.

43

OverviewIn 2007-08 we have budgeted over $5M teacher and classified substitute costs

Recommendation Target unnecessary absences

1. Continue to monitor absences on a monthly basis2. Expand employee attendance program (piloted in ’07-

08)3. Expand wellness policy to include more programs for

healthy employees4. Establish a leave management office5. Transition to an automated time accounting system

Financial Impact: Goal is to save 10% or $500,000 per year

44

Overview Cost of energy in the United States over the past several years has steadily risen due to increases in oil and gasoline prices In 2007-08 OUSD has spend in excess of $8 million on utilities or approximately 4% of the District’s unrestricted General Fund ($210 p.s.) Over past three years, expenses for utilities has dropped to $209 per student in 2007-08 from $211 per student in 2005-06.

Recommendation Institute a school utility refund program in which school’s receive rebates for spending less on utilities than prior year. Conduct research on potential state energy rebate programs in which the District can transition to energy savings technology while mitigating installation cost. Revisit district-wide opportunity for installing “green products” throughout the District.

45

Based on feedback from the State Administrator and the Board of Education, staff suggest

• Present a final, revised MYFSP to Board on June 11th based on feedback from tonight’s discussions

• Interim Superintendent establishes periodic meetings to provide Board and community with updates on the progress of implementing MYFSP

• Working with Interim Superintendent to define community engagement process for the Right Sizing Plan

• Continue best practice research to further inform OUSD Right Sizing Plan

46

Debt service schedules

47

MEASURE C MEASURE A MEASURE B Total Principal Interest FinalName Dated Date Original Par Original Par Original Par Outstanding Rate Maturity

Series A 5/23/1995 12,200,000$ -$ 8/1/2019 REFUNDEDSeries A 5/23/1995 18,315,640 - 8/1/2019 REFUNDEDSeries B 7/30/1997 9,999,977 - 5.18% 8/1/2022 REFUNDEDSeries C 5/20/1998 27,045,000 - 5.08% 8/1/2019 REFUNDEDSeries C 5/20/1998 8,916,738 - 5.34% 8/1/2012 REFUNDEDSeries D 5/20/1998 5,999,277 - 5.40% 8/1/2022 REFUNDEDSeries E 5/1/1999 10,000,000 - 5.09% 8/1/2023 REFUNDEDSeries F 4/1/2000 75,000,000 3,735,000 5.85% 8/1/2024

Series 2001 6/1/2001 38,215,107 400,398 5.10% 8/1/2025Series 2001 6/1/2001 61,999,893 649,602 5.10% 8/1/2025Series 2002 8/1/2002 100,000,000 97,030,000 4.92% 8/1/2026Series 2005 8/31/2005 141,000,000 140,200,000 4.38% 8/1/2030

Series 2006 11/28/2006 130,000,000 122,735,000 4.45% 8/1/2031Series 2008 8/1/2008 150,000,000 5.25% 8/1/2033 EstimateSeries 2010 8/1/2010 155,000,000 5.50% 8/1/2035 Estimate

Issued 205,691,738$ 302,999,893$ 130,000,000$

To be Issued 305,000,000$

2007 Refunding 8/1/2007 199,240,000 4.48% 8/1/2025

TOTAL OUTSTANDING 563,990,000$

PARTIALLY REFUNDED

Comments

Issued as one series;PARTIALLY REFUNDED

48

PrincipalIssue Final Original Outstanding Annual

Series Date Maturity Principal 5/1/2008 Payments Comments

* Series G - Refund Series A & Series D;HVAC

6/17/1999 8/1/2024 27,060,000$ 2,050,000$ Approx. $970,000 (thru 2010, then $16,000)

Refinance prior COPS; $200,000 for HVAC project

* Series G - Chabot Observatory 6/17/1999 8/1/2024 10,265,000 8,460,000 Approx. $700,000 $10 million loan to Chabot

** Series H - Refund Honeywell Phase II and Phase III

7/15/1999 11/1/2014 12,565,000 6,810,000 Approx. $1,100,000 Replaces Capital Leases for Honeywell Phase II and Phase III

* Series J - Bi-Tech System 1/8/2002 8/1/2010 4,690,000 1,960,000 Approx. $680,000 Purchase & installation of BiTech management information & accounting

TOTAL COPS OUTSTANDING: 44,315,000 19,280,000$ Approx. $3,200,000

49

All COPs are variable rate. Table below estimates interest at 4.50%.

Fiscal YearEnding Series G (Net*) Series H Series J Total COP DS

6/30/2008 971,494.44 1,097,496.64 673,862.41 2,742,853 6/30/2009 974,426.75 1,113,737.02 674,711.93 2,762,876 6/30/2010 983,370.46 1,138,114.58 688,197.60 2,809,683 6/30/2011 17,088.42 1,137,171.99 692,769.59 1,847,030 6/30/2012 16,651.91 1,134,723.64 1,151,376 6/30/2013 16,175.56 1,129,623.83 1,145,799 6/30/2014 15,738.43 1,128,432.59 1,144,171 6/30/2015 15,288.44 1,124,953.42 1,140,242 6/30/2016 14,848.18 14,848 6/30/2017 14,379.28 14,379 6/30/2018 13,938.42 13,938 6/30/2019 13,488.42 13,488 6/30/2020 13,044.46 13,044 6/30/2021 12,582.99 12,583 6/30/2022 12,138.42 12,138 6/30/2023 16,520.15 16,520 6/30/2024 15,846.54 15,847 6/30/2025 15,169.67 15,170 6/30/2026

3,152,190.94 9,004,253.71 2,729,541.53 14,885,986

COP Repayment Schedule

50

PrincipalIssue Final Original Outstanding Annual

Series Date Maturity Principal 5/1/2008 Payments Comments

STATE LOAN

Emergency Apportionment Loan 6/4/2003 6/1/2023 65,000,000$ -$ 20 year repayment; 1.778% interest

Lease Revenue Bonds 4/30/2008 8/1/2023 59,565,000$ 59,565,000$ 3,890,534$ State deducts pymts from State aid, then reimburses the District the difference btwn orig. loan and bond pymts.

Emergency Apportionment Loan 6/30/2006 6/1/2026 35,000,000 33,527,397 2,094,903$ 20 year repayment; 1.778% interest.

159,565,000$ 93,092,397$ 5,985,437$

• Original State Loan for $65 Million converted to “Lease Revenue Bonds” by the State. Annual repayment of $3,890,532 is automatically deducted.• Additional draw-down of $35 Million set-aside for specific purposes and to repay itself.

51

Interest earnings and loan proceeds are sufficient to make payments through 2023.

The District will need to repay $8 million of the total $35 million loan.

State Loan #2

Year Ending Beg BalanceInterest

EarningsApproved

Exp Loan PaymentDistrict

PaymentEnding Balance

Principal Balance

3.00% 35,000,000 30-Jun-07 35,064,590 434,279 (739,067) (2,094,903) - 32,664,899 35,000,000

30-Jun-08 32,664,899 979,947 (1,726,774) (2,094,903) - 29,823,169 33,527,397 30-Jun-09 29,823,169 894,695 (1,798,885) (2,094,903) - 26,824,076 32,028,611 30-Jun-10 26,824,076 804,722 (4,534,159) (2,094,903) - 20,999,737 30,503,177 30-Jun-11 20,999,737 629,992 (2,094,903) - 19,534,826 28,950,620 30-Jun-12 19,534,826 586,045 (2,094,903) - 18,025,968 27,370,459 30-Jun-13 18,025,968 540,779 (2,094,903) - 16,471,844 25,762,203 30-Jun-14 16,471,844 494,155 (2,094,903) - 14,871,096 24,125,352 30-Jun-15 14,871,096 446,133 (2,094,903) - 13,222,326 22,459,398 30-Jun-16 13,222,326 396,670 (2,094,903) - 11,524,093 20,763,823 30-Jun-17 11,524,093 345,723 (2,094,903) - 9,774,912 19,038,101 30-Jun-18 9,774,912 293,247 (2,094,903) - 7,973,257 17,281,695 30-Jun-19 7,973,257 239,198 (2,094,903) - 6,117,552 15,494,061 30-Jun-20 6,117,552 183,527 (2,094,903) - 4,206,175 13,674,642 30-Jun-21 4,206,175 126,185 (2,094,903) - 2,237,457 11,822,874 30-Jun-22 2,237,457 67,124 (2,094,903) - 209,678 9,938,182 30-Jun-23 209,678 6,290 (215,968) (1,878,935) - 8,019,980 30-Jun-24 - - - (2,094,903) - 6,067,672 30-Jun-25 - - - (2,094,903) - 4,080,652 30-Jun-26 - - - (2,094,903) - 2,058,303 30-Jun-27 - - (0)

7,468,711$ (8,798,885)$ (33,734,416)$ (8,163,644)$

Fund 17 Activity